Page 1 of Aykroyd confirms Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent, but wait....

... they are going to do it in CGI?

Of course, he could be telling a porky, and I`m not too sure about the idea myself. Saying that, most of the original cast are so old and fat now I can`t imagine them pulling off a new live action film.

Here`s the radio interview, where he mentions it. It`s on part 2.

So what do you think then? Yay or nay?

Ghostbusters was a great film (second was a bit lame though). I thibnk a cgi version will not work as will a 3rd movie with the original cast. I think they shoudl have a next generation with the original cast in cameos handing over the baton as it were. This allows for a new franchise to be developed.

Whatever they make, i`ll go and watch it. :D

No, it`s another franchise they should leave alone and let it die a classic

UQ Web Design

You just have to look at the cartoon incarnations to see changing the formula won`t work. I do actually like the second film as much as the first, mainly as it`s a real `follow-on` movie, whereas most movie sequels carry on in a straight line, GB2 threw everything off at a tangent (Pete & Dana split up and she`s got a sprog, the Busters had gone bust and had to resort to entertaining at parties for yuppie-larva. Sure, the ending was pure Yank flag-waving, but it was still ok.

A third movie? Pointless without Murray, who made the first 2. Watch lost in translation and imagine him running through the streets of NYC in a jumpsuit.

(shudders)

============================
Curse this infernal alcohol...


My Collection

He`s been trying to do a third film for aaaaages, but Columbia wouldn`t finance the film due to it`s potentially huge budget, I think Ackroyd fell out with Ivan Rietman at one point, and Ivan refused to direct it, Murray refused to reprise his role.

I remember reading that one of his ideas is that New York is turned in to hell, and Satan was churning the lost souls off the Brooklin Bridge in to the lake of fire, which sounds cool, but what it really as well as having fancy special effects, is that it has to capture the spirit (no pun intended), of the original.

floyd

If it was CGI, then Murray would probably do it. He`s always been against sequels, and only did GB2 because they threw lots and lots of money at him. He did garfield 2 mainly because it was voice work

============================
Curse this infernal alcohol...


My Collection

I do think GB2 was a decent film though. Some of the images in it (like the Titanic) are fantastic, and I still really enjoy it every time I watch it. It`s not as good as the first, but then again the first is a classic. A third in CGI? If they can at least keep it within the same tone as the previous films, then it might be preferable to a live action version. And a new Ghostbusters film can`t be a bad thing, right? Only as long as Aykroyd is scripting it (with his original Hellbent script) though.

Or it could turn out to be a turkey like Blues Brothers 2000!!!!

floyd

Oh. God. No......

============================
Curse this infernal alcohol...


My Collection

Ghostbusters II was a cash in IMHO